Juhi-alluva suhted organisatsioonis ja sotsiaalsetes süsteemides üldisemalt, on midagi, mille alahindamine ei ole hea idee vähemalt alluva ning organisatsiooni arengu aspektist. Sestap siinviidatu oma koha leidiski.


People were born equal, yet they are treated differently everywhere. Differentiated treatment from those in authority is ubiquitous, especially in the workplace. Taking the leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship as an example, high-LMX members share mutual trust, open communication, and reciprocal support with supervisors, while low-LMX members’ relationship with supervisors is limited to basic contractual-type obligations (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

Erialaste lühendite mõistmine teeb lugemise lihtsamaks:

However, when exploring the effect of meso-level LMX differentiation on subordinates, almost all studies focused on the effect of subordinates’ relative LMX (RLMX) or LMX social comparison (LMXSC) and the social meaning of whether one’s LMX quality is better or worse than coworkers (for one rare exception, see Harris, Li, & Kirkman, 2014).


Based on group diversity typology (Harrison & Klein, 2007), LMX differentiation is considered as a multifaceted concept including three aspects, namely, separation, disparity, and variety (Buengeler, Piccolo, & Locklear, 2021; Martin, Thomas, Legood, & Dello Russo, 2018).

Siia lisan ka väljavõtte ülalviidatud Harrison & Kleini (2007) tüpoloogiale (vabalevist tekst on leitav siit):

Autorite ambitsioon:

In a nutshell, our research aims to shed light on the detrimental effect of the separation aspect of LMX differentiation at the meso level and to investigate whether, how, and when LMXRS could influence subordinates’ organizational altruism behaviors.


The difference between LMXRS and group-level LMX differentiation lies in their operating level and the social information that they can impart. Specifically, group-level LMX differentiation is operationalized as the overall heterogeneous atmosphere of in-group LMX relationships (Liden et al., 2006) while LMXRS captures the focal member’s dissimilarity or similarity to coworkers in LMX at the meso level (Harris et al., 2014).

Protseduuriline õigus:

Procedural justice is defined as the individual perception of fairness in the resource-allocating and decision-making procedures within the organization.

Kuidas töötajad ennast tunnevad:

In other words, subordinates perceive the group procedure as fair only when they are treated equally, their leaders are trustworthy, and their status is socially recognized (Chen et al., 2018).

Õiglustundest organisatsioonis:

Organizational justice theory indicates that people have an inherent aversion to unjust behaviors beyond their self-interest (Adams, 1965; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Therefore, to avoid horizontal social categorization due to differing LMX quality, we encourage team leaders to devote more resources to developing high-quality exchange relationships with their subordinates in an equal way. […] Second, group leaders should pay more attention to low-LMX members. Our findings show that low-LMX members will easily be vulnerable to harm from increasing LMXRS when the group-level LMX differentiation is low. […] Finally, team leaders could enhance subordinates’ perception of personal value within the group to strengthen their procedural justice perception and motivate them to engage more in cooperative behaviors.

Chen, S., & Zhang, C. (2021). What Happens to a Black Sheep? Exploring How Multilevel Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation Shapes the Organizational Altruism Behaviors of Low Leader–Member Exchange Minority. Group & Organization Management, 46(6), 1073–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121998584